Jerusalem Court Rules Against Rooftop Event Hall in Penthouse Dispute
Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba
A Jerusalem court ruled that the rooftop of a building belongs to the owners of a penthouse apartment, not to the common property. The court prohibited the defendants from operating an event hall on the rooftop but allowed private use. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs 20,000 shekels in legal fees, and their counterclaim was dismissed.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Jerusalem court ruled rooftop belongs to penthouse owners, not common property.
- Defendants prohibited from operating a commercial event hall on the rooftop.
- Plaintiffs' claims about common property rights and extensive construction were rejected.
- Defendants' counterclaim for 1.1 million shekels was dismissed by the court.
- Defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs 20,000 shekels for legal expenses.
A Jerusalem Magistrate's Court has ruled on a dispute between owners of two adjacent penthouse apartments concerning the use of a building's rooftop. Judge Nail Mahna prohibited the defendants from operating an event hall or conducting any commercial activity involving the public on the rooftop.
The case involved duplex apartments spanning the seventh and eighth floors of a building on Shagar Street. The defendants purchased their apartment in 2014, and the plaintiffs bought theirs a year later. Both parties had previously received orders to cease construction work.
In February 2023, the plaintiffs claimed the rooftop above their apartment was common property and that their neighbors lacked exclusive rights. They alleged the defendants had undertaken extensive construction, including creating openings and demolishing walls, to establish a roughly 200-square-meter event hall with a kitchen, pool, and restrooms. The plaintiffs expressed concerns about noise, dirt, and privacy violations, seeking to halt construction, demolish additions, and regulate access to the protected room.
The defendants, however, argued the rooftop was exclusively attached to their apartment and that the plaintiffs had no ownership rights. They denied plans for a "simcha hall" (celebration hall), stating the intended use was private and familial. The defendants filed a counterclaim for approximately 1.1 million shekels, alleging the plaintiffs had split their apartment into two units, performed unlicensed work, and exploited building rights belonging to them.
Judge Mahna determined that the rooftop belonged to the defendants and was not part of the common property, citing land registry approvals and the plaintiff's own admission in court that the rights to the roof were not his. The ruling also noted a previous arbitration where the plaintiff acknowledged the roof belonged to the previous owner of the adjacent apartment and received 20,000 shekels, contradicting his current claim. Despite granting ownership to the defendants, the court imposed a permanent injunction against operating an event hall or any commercial activity involving the public. Private use and lawful construction were permitted. The defendants were also ordered to ensure immediate access to the protected room for the plaintiffs during emergencies and to restore ventilation and fire suppression systems to a safe condition. The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed entirely, as no damage justifying demolition or apartment splitting was proven, nor were the defendants' claims to exclusive building rights substantiated.
As a result of the overall outcome, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs 20,000 shekels for expenses and legal fees.
